This post may contain affiliate links. Please read our disclosure for more information.
In the fall of 2019, I invented a theory called the public use theory. Here are the two key premises of that theory:
- Premise One: All institutions—because they’re run by mere mortals—are flawed to one degree or another.
- Premise Two: The more you engage with any particular institution, the more likely you’ll be exposed to its flaws.
I haven’t thought about my public use theory in a long time, but the Wuhan flu has changed that. (Yes, I had the audacity to write Wuhan flu. Bite me, SJWs.) And given our government’s response to the Wuhan flu, I’ve come to the conclusion that premise two needs a slight modification. Here it is:
- New and Improved Premise Two: The more you engage with or depend on any particular institution, the more likely you’ll be exposed to and hurt by its flaws.
Let’s now see why I felt it necessary to modify premise two.
Where Are Our Stimulus Checks!
Mrs. Groovy and I missed round one of the stimulus checks. Family and friends got their direct deposits in the middle of April but the IRS decided to treat us like redheaded stepchildren.
Not getting a stimulus check meant nothing to me. But it roused Mrs. Groovy’s sense of fair play. She was determined to unlock the mystery of the hold-up. So she navigated to Get My Payment on her browser and soon discovered that the IRS lacked our bank account information—which was quite odd, actually. The IRS used direct deposit to make good on our 2018 tax refund, and it used direct withdrawal to whisk away our 2019 tax shortfall. Thankfully, though, the Get My Payment portal allows users to update their bank account information. Mrs. Groovy dutifully provided the IRS with our routing number and checking account number and on the last day in April, the IRS deposited twenty-four hundred clams into our semi-depleted checking account. Happy days are here again!
What If
But what if Mrs. Groovy and I had no savings and were living paycheck to paycheck? What if we really needed the stimulus money to put food on the table, gas in the car, or a rent check in the landlord’s hands? Missing round one of the stimulus checks would have visited serious hardship upon our souls.
Fortunately, we’re not dependent on anyone or anything for sustenance. We’re financially independent and don’t need the federal government’s stimulus money to help us ride out this pandemic. And that’s why I felt it necessary to modify premise two.
Being financially independent didn’t protect us from being exposed to the federal government’s flaws. But it did protect us from being hurt by the federal government’s flaws. That distinction, in turn, is worth highlighting. When an institution is huge (hello, federal government!), you have no choice but to engage with it and be exposed to its flaws. Since exposure to its flaws is a given, the only recourse you have left is to soften the blow of those flaws. And this is best done by not needing it or its services. Modifying premise two helps address this rather important wrinkle.
If We Want Better Institutions, We Got to Be Better Ourselves
My modification of my public use theory has gotten me thinking. Are institutions great because they employ great people and have great operating procedures? Or are institutions great because they serve great people?
To show where I’m going with this, let’s stick to the Wuhan flu pandemic and our government’s response to it.
For the most part, given that we’re a republic with decentralized power and we have allowed our industrial base to wither via globalist trade policies, I think our government, at both the federal and local levels, has done a pretty good job responding to the pandemic. Here, for instance, are the developed countries with the highest Wuhan flu fatality rates:
| Country | Confirmed Cases Per One Million of Population | Confirmed Case Fatality Rate | What Stress-Adjusted Fatality Rate Should Be Based on US Confirmed Case and Fatality Rate Benchmarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 4,708.3 | 16.29% | 6.56% |
| France | 2,648.6 | 15.02% | 3.69% |
| United Kingdom | 3,354.8 | 14.38% | 4.67% |
| Italy | 3,637.4 | 13.98% | 5.07% |
| Netherlands | 2,483.2 | 12.75% | 3.46% |
| Sweden | 2,619.0 | 12.21% | 3.65% |
| Spain | 5,738.9 | 9.97% | 7.99% |
| Canada | 1,888.4 | 7.13% | 2.63% |
| Ireland | 4,766.7 | 6.34% | 6.64% |
| Switzerland | 3,567.2 | 6.07% | 4.97% |
| United States | 4,236.0 | 5.90% | NA |
| Greece | 254.1 | 5.54% | 0.35% |
| Denmark | 1,826.8 | 5.03% | 2.54% |
| Finland | 1,087.9 | 4.53% | 1.52% |
| Germany | 2,081.6 | 4.44% | 2.90% |
| Portugal | 2,692.0 | 4.13% | 3.75% |
| Japan | 125.2 | 3.99% | 0.17% |
| Austria | 1,804.1 | 3.90% | 2.51% |
| Norway | 1,530.2 | 2.75% | 2.13% |
| South Korea | 211.2 | 2.36% | 0.29% |
As of now, the United States ranks 11th when it comes to confirmed-case fatality rates. Our fatality rate is less than half the fatality rates of Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden. And if we stress-adjusted fatality rates based on confirmed cases per million, our government’s response looks even better. Canada, for instance, has a confirmed-case per million number that is just 44 percent of ours (1,888.4 vs. 4,236). Since Canada has a lower confirmed-case per million number, its healthcare system has had presumably more resources to throw at its infected people and its fatality rate should be lower than ours. If its fatality rate were 44 percent of ours, its fatality rate would be 2.63 percent. But that’s not the case, of course. Canada’s fatality rate is actually 7.13 percent. It’s worse than ours in an absolute sense and much worse in a stress-adjusted sense. The only country doing better than us in a stress-adjusted sense is Ireland. Its stress-adjusted fatality rate is 6.64 percent. Its actual fatality rate is 6.34 percent.
To be sure, given the myriad number of variables that affect the lethalness of the Wuhan flu, fatality rates and stress-adjusted fatality rates are crude measures of how a country’s handling the Wuhan flu. Nor are fatality rates and stress-adjusted fatality rates the only measures of how a country’s handling the Wuhan flu. How well a country mitigates the infection rate and how well a country shields its citizen from the economic carnage of a prolonged lockdown are also key measures.
When it comes to fatality rates, infection rates, and lockdown support, I give our government’s overall response a grade of B-. But if I were to take account of the social, financial, and physical health of our country’s citizens, I’d give our government’s overall response an A+. In other words, because we the people are so screwed up, it’s impossible for our government to have responded any better to the Wuhan flu than it’s responded to date.
Oh, sure, our government could have slashed our infection rate by locking down our country several weeks sooner. But in order for that to have happened, we would have needed to be much more socially cohesive. And the sad truth of the matter is that we’re just too Balkanized. We don’t trust each other and we don’t like each other.
It also would have helped our government to initiate the lockdown sooner if we were financially stronger. But it’s kind of hard to idle 20 percent of the workforce and get ahead of the infection curve when nearly 80 percent of American adults are living paycheck to paycheck.
Could our government have lowered our fatality rate? I don’t see how. The deadliness of the Wuhan flu battens on complications, and we have an acute fondness for complications. Forty-six percent of American adults have hypertension. Forty-two percent of American adults are obese. And while ten percent of American adults have type-2 diabetes, twenty-five percent of American adults 65 and over have type-2 diabetes.
You get the point. There’s only so much our government can do. Our government can’t order factories to ramp up production of PPE and ventilators when our perfectly understandable quest for greater safety (i.e., environmental laws), fairness (i.e., labor laws), affordability, and profit has forced those factories to move overseas. And I don’t know how our government could have simultaneously saved our hospitals and unemployment offices from both being overwhelmed.
If we learn anything from this Wuhan flu pandemic, I hope it’s this: Institutions—especially the government kind—aren’t run by angels. They, therefore, don’t do perfection very well. And if our well-being depends on any institution being perfect, we’re doing something wrong.
Final Thoughts
Okay, groovy freedomists, that’s all I got. What say you? Does my modification of the public use theory make sense? Or is it a pointless effort by a pointless blogger trying to improve a pointless theory? Let me know what you think when you get a chance. Peace.
Mr G. they withheld your money because you’ve been poking the government bear. It could be a warning! As to your logic, impeccable as usual, but glad I’m anonymous so my checks won’t get delayed for agreeing with you!
Excellent point, steveark. Poke the bear and expect to be bitten or mauled. I love the cut of your jib, my friend.
LOVE this, and totally agree. I read somewhere that 88% of the fatalities in the U.S. had Type-2 diabetes. One doctor said that the peeps aren’t dying because they have COVID, they’re dying because they have Type-2 Diabetes. Interesting.
Or because they ate too many peeps? 🙂
Does massive consumption of sugary peeps cause type 2 diabetes? What about covid?
I kid…
Great post
More peeps you eat the more likely you’ll come down with type 2 diabetes. Have type 2 diabetes and the more likely a complication like COVID will take you down. All too humorous and all too sad. Thanks for chiming in, katsiki.
Excellent point, Laurie. Dying with COVID isn’t the same as dying from COVID.